WPMS/503/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 882 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                NAINITAL

              ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                                 BEFORE:

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


              Writ Petition (M/S) No.503 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Nikesh Chandra Aggrawal                                .....Petitioner
     (Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary,
     Advocate)




AND:

     State of Uttarakhand & others                   .....Respondents
     (Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C.)



                               JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. According to the petitioner, he was granted a mining lease for extracting mines and minerals from his agricultural land situate in Village Rampur Raighati, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar District Haridwar. The said lease was granted for a period of five years w.e.f. 14.03.2016; the period of lease is now over. According to the petitioner, he could not operate the mining lease for certain period, due to the ban imposed by the State Government; therefore, the petitioner wants extension of the period of his mining lease. Although in the writ petition, petitioner has sought various other reliefs, which have now become infructuous, as the period of

mining lease is over, therefore, the petitioner confines his prayer to prayer no.II and III only, and submits that the Competent Authority in the State Government be directed to consider petitioner's request for extension of lease in the light of Government Orders dated 27.01.2020 and 11.02.2021.

3. Shri Tribhuwan Singh Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the State, however, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of said Government Orders as those Government Orders are applicable in respect of such mining lease which has been granted over the government land and since the petitioner had been granted mining rights over his own private land, therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of said government orders. He further submits that the mining lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled due to violation of some conditions of the lease, although the said cancellation was subsequently set-aside on technical grounds.

4. Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the Secretary (Mining), within two weeks from today. In the representation to be made, petitioner may also claim refund of the excess amount, if any, deposited by him. If such a representation is made, Secretary (Mining) shall look into the matter and take

appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

5. Subject to the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Rajni